You're never going to oust him using the law—unless the politics turns

President Donald Trump’s business dealings, unhinged tweets and conflicts of interest, coupled with lurid sexual allegations and whispers of Russian links have led some to dream that impeachment could be just around the corner. The chatter started even before he took office, and by January’s end half a million people had signed the “Impeach Trump Now” petition. It’s all very wishful thinking.

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers… shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives must vote upon an impeachment resolution and the Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation. If the House then accepts the impeachment charges, the action moves to the Senate, where a trial takes place. To convict an impeached president a full two-thirds of the Senate must find him guilty. The first of these steps (Committee investigation) has taken place three times: in 1868 (President Andrew Johnson), 1974 (Richard Nixon) and 1998 (Bill Clinton). The second (House vote and Senate trial), twice—for Presidents Johnson and Clinton, but not Nixon, who resigned before trial. The third (conviction) has never taken place.

In conscious opposition to the ancient maxim “the king can do no wrong,” the Founding Fathers created a presidency that was not shielded from responsibility for wrongdoing. In early Constitutional drafts only treason and bribery were impeachable. One founder—George Mason—suggested adding “maladministration,” but James Madison objected that this loose formulation would hand a weapon to politically-motivated enemies of the president. They compromised with “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But Madison’s fears proved well founded: impeachment has never truly been a legal process, and always a political one. The political battleground? Defining “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Unlike well-defined treason or bribery, the “high Crimes” test is entirely elastic. The President’s supporters take a restrictive view, his opponents an expansive one. Presidents may wish things were clearer, and sometimes claim that they are. “You don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that the constitution is very precise in defining what is an impeachable offence,” whimpered a besieged Nixon in 1974. But he was wrong: the Founders did not specify a list of specific offences, nor even require any actual criminal offence be proved. His…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Prospect’s Top Thinkers—which salutes the scientists, philosophers and writers reshaping our times. We’ll also send you our weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics, economics, history, science, literature and the arts. You can, of course, unsubscribe from this newsletter at any time.

Email

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

Comments

Adrienne Baker

February 18, 2017 at 08:16

Assuming that 'all will be well' is naive. Trump does not speak the language of educated adults and he is dangerously impetuous. His supporters urge us to accept him as he is and 'give him a chance', to accustom ourselves to his sudden changes in direction and indulge his moods. He will not be impeached because the institutions responsible for this are hampered by their measured interpretation of the Constitution. Trump, as is clear, would break laws to get what he wants so if his opponents abide by them we have no hope of getting rid of him. Dr Hackett is, depressingly, right.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world— straight to your inbox. PLUS receive a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

What can we learn from seven centuries of disasters, can the WHO survive and should we have started testing earlier? Prospect provides answers to these questions and asks what the post-Covid world will look like. Plus: Barbara Speed goes in search of sleep

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.